Censorship By Other Means

 BOOKS NOT BOUGHT
    This post will be shorter than most of mine since it is more serious. My contention is that some books may not be purchased by the  library near you for political reasons. That is hardly a startling statement. It is made more so if you consider this example.
    There is a book published in Canada, about Canada, and some currently contentious issues in Canadian history. It is not just off the press and there has been ample time to order a copy. Although today I could not access the Toronto Public Library, last September, 9 copies were available and there were 33 “holds.” Today, the Vancouver Public Library has 4 copies and 2 “holds” on them
    The book has not yet been ordered by the London Public Library. It is also the case that the book does not show up in the catalogue of the Western Libraries or in any other of the 15 or so Ontario University Libraries included in the Omni academic search tool. The reason the book  has not been ordered is likely found in the subtitle of the book and the irony should be obvious.

   Further evidence for why the book may be unappealing to some librarians is found in this description of the book taken from the Amazon website.

   "From assaults on historical figures such as John A. Macdonald to cancel culture and charges that Canada is a genocidal nation-state, the country that every generation and every immigrant built is now facing routine and corrosive attacks.

   How did this happen?

   In this new book, twenty critical thinkers provide answers: we are awash in relentless grievance narratives and utopians who expect Canada’s history to be perfect. The rise of critical theory, identity politics, and ideological politics in the education system also play a part. The authors challenge the naysayers and their caustic criticisms, but also offer a positive path forward. They show how truth-telling, informed history, and renewing a Canada where citizens reject divisions based on colour and gender, and instead unite around laudable, time-tested ideas will create a freer, flourishing Canada for all."

   Much more could be written about the purchasing decisions at the libraries and one hopes that much more is written about the arguments presented in the book. About the former I will say only that it is highly unlikely that The 1867 Project... was simply overlooked by so many libraries.  After all, the LPL, last year denied space for an author with views now found unacceptable (or perhaps ‘harmful’) and the Chief Librarian at the Niagara-on-the Lake Public Library was fired recently for suggesting  “viewpoints that don’t conform to progressive agendas are rarely represented in library collections and anyone who challenges this is labelled a bigot. But the tide is beginning to turn.”’

The tide may be turning. At least the NOTL Public Library purchased one copy.

Sources:
   The London Public Library refused to host the author Joanna Williams: "London Public Library Refuses to Rent Space to Event Featuring author of How Woke Won: The Society for Academic Freedom Will Host Joanna Williams at Hotel and University Instead," Rebecca Zandbergen, CBC News, May 18, 2023.   
   The unfortunate situation in NOTL has been widely covered. See, for example, "Niagara-on-the-Lake Board Fires CEO Cathy Simpson," Kevin Werner, Niagara-on-the-Lake Advance, March 22, 2024. For the "radical" views of the CEO see, "Opinion:Censorship and What We Are Allowed to Read," Cathy Simpson, special to The Lake Report, Feb. 21, 2024. She writes:
   "Public libraries should be home to many viewpoints, not just progressive ones....

This hidden library censorship takes two forms: the vigorous defence of books promoting diversity of identity, but little to no defence of books promoting diversity of viewpoint, and the purchase of books promoting “progressive” ideas over “traditional” ideas."
    Much of the commentary about The 1867 Project in the press is provided by those associated with the publication of it. There have been some reviews in the Postmedia universe. For example, "Finally, Resistance to the Woke Anti-Canada Narrative," Barbara Kay, Postmedia Breaking News, July 8, 2023 and, "Freedom Reigns in Canada: The 1867 Project Essays Expose Most of Mainstream Canadian Negativism As the Product of Twisted Ideologies and Misunderstandings," Terence Corcoran, National Post, July 1, 2023.

   The 1867 Project was edited by Michael Milke and produced by the Aristotle Foundation For Public Policy. 

Be Careful What You're Woke For

   

   When you think of Baltimore,  you are probably more likely to associate it with "The Wire" than you are with works of art. It does have some fine museums, however,  including the Walters Art Museum and the Baltimore Museum of Art, which is still the home of the painting above. I wrote 'still' because recently the museum put Warhol's "The Last Supper" and a couple of other paintings up for sale.

   The purpose of the sale was an admirable one, one would think. It was a reaction to the "Black Lives Matter" movement and the money was to be used to support diversity and equity and to raise the salaries of the lower paid employees who were likely not the same colour as the higher paid ones. What could go wrong?

   The selling of a painting by a white Warhol and other white artists to raise $65 million in a city that is largely Black, surely should be a sure thing.  An earlier sale to raise money to purchase more works by women and Black artists had been successful, but this effort was not. The sale has been cancelled, some board members have resigned and one potential $50 million gift was withdrawn (it gets even messier - the name of one of the anonymous donors was revealed.)

   Deaccessioning is the problem and in this case it Trumped the ones related to race relations. There are rules governing the sale of art works housed in non-profit museums. For example, if you donated a painting to the local gallery, you would be pleased if there was a rule to prevent the selling of it to support a grand office party, or even to repair the plumbing. The Association of Art Museum Directors enforces restrictions related to such matters and they have recently relaxed them since many museums are experiencing budgetary problems, some of which are related to the pandemic. One has to be careful in such circumstances as this statement indicates: “If you start monetizing the value of the art on the walls, it raises a whole host of problems and leads to a slippery slope,” Laurence Eisenstein, a leading critic, said. “Next time the state or city are thinking about giving money to the museum, it leads to people asking questions like ‘why don’t you sell some works?’”

   This post is in response to an article I read this morning and because blogging is easier than Christmas shopping. A couple of years ago I did write about this issue when a Canadian deaccessioning controversy occurred. The attempted sale of a Chagall by the National Gallery, caused all kinds of problems. Years before that there was a dispute here in London when the University of Western Ontario sold a Cropsey. You can read more about it in this post: Jasper Cropsey ,which I will feature today.

Sources: 

"A Baltimore Museum Tried to Raise More Money by Selling Three Pricey Artworks: It Backfired Stupendously," Sebastian Smee and Peggy McGlone, Washington Post, Dec. 6, 2020.
See also: "Baltimore Museum Halts Sales of Three Painting, Including Warhol's "Last Supper," Just Hours Before Auction," Peggy McGlone, Washington Post, Oct. 28, 2020.

The Bonus:

  I gather that the University close by is also addressing the Black Lives Matter movement and attempting to do something about the systemic racism that exists there, apparently in clear violation of the HR rules and provincial regulations relating to such things as promotion and hiring. Princeton is doing the same thing as you will learn from the first few paragraphs found in this nicely titled article:
"Keywords: Hoist, Petard: On How Princeton's Crusade Against Systemic Racism Has Backfired," Roger Kimball, New Criterion, Nov. 2020.

Perhaps we ought to have included “chickens” and “roost” among the keywords as well. For many years now, woke administrators, professors, and other activists at all the toniest colleges have been like the parade of flagellants in The Seventh Seal: skirling in public about their sins, above all their institutional or (as we have lately been taught to say) their “systemic” racism. Their cries are accompanied by the demand for alms—$50 million at Yale to support “diversity,” $100 million at Brown for kindred exercises in political penance, and so on.

On September 2, Christopher L. Eisgruber, the president of Princeton University, made a major contribution to this emetic genre. In an open letter to the university “community,” he beat his breast about America’s overdue “profound national reckoning with racism.” He didn’t exclude his own university. Indeed, he beat himself harder as he bemoaned Princeton’s long history of “intentionally and systematically exclud[ing] people of color, women, Jews, and other minorities.” Nor, according to him, has that history ended. “Racist assumptions from the past,” President Eisgruber sobbed, “remain embedded in structures of the University itself.”

His confession did not go unnoticed. On September 16, the Department of Education sent President Eisgruber a letter. The letter minutes an interesting discrepancy. Since Christopher Eisgruber became president of Princeton in 2013, the university has received more than $75 million in taxpayer funds. It has also “repeatedly represented and warranted to the U.S. Department of Education . . . Princeton’s compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” What’s Title VI? Among other things, it’s the law that stipulates that no institution receiving federal funds may discriminate against anyone because of “race, color, or national origin.”